The international community does not recognize Israel's occupation of the West Bank.Israel does not recognize its own occupation of the West Bank--because if it did, it would have to grant citizenship to the Palestinians there.Israel allows the settlement of the West Bank in violation of international law.

If Israel wants to keep the West Bank, then unilaterally annex it and deal with the consequences of a binational Israel. Otherwise, dismantle the settlements and withdraw. They can't have it both ways, which is what they are doing now.

Israel endures ROCKETS fired by these people. Every week! The people in Sderot, even Ashkelon, are getting bombed by these savages on a weekly, sometimes daily basis. What do you think the USA would do if the Mexicans bombed San Diego just for the lull? I assure you the smell of it would be the least of their problems.

Have you been to parts of San Diego lately?? We apparently would do nothing. Well we would apologize then give them free food, housing, jobs and medical. When they complain and shiat bomb us some more by throwing dirty diapers out the window we will give them free scholarships to UCLA.

Israel endures ROCKETS fired by these people. Every week! The people in Sderot, even Ashkelon, are getting bombed by these savages on a weekly, sometimes daily basis. What do you think the USA would do if the Mexicans bombed San Diego just for the lull? I assure you the smell of it would be the least of their problems.

whidbey:Because People in power are Stupid: whidbey: There you go again. No measure of responsibility whatsoever for Israel and its Zionist kooks who were running it. It's obviously the other guy's fault.

So, Egypt wasn't amassing troops on their border?

History shows Israel to be the aggressor. I think you're content to keep missing the point: that not everyone was happy with the rosy arrangement of carving Israel out into a country.

The reason why there's so much violence there is because of the West's insistence on pounding a square peg into a round hole, so to speak.

wrong. Israel is shown to be the respondent, not the aggressor. But if you it makes you feel better.

Israel gave them the land they demanded expecting the Palestinians to stick to the peace agreement. The Palestinians saw it as an opportunity for a new front to fire rockets at the "evil j00z". Every single time Israel has made a concession, they have been proven wrong to trust anyone. They have zero incentive to play nice, especially since the UN spends more time denouncing anything they do instead of actually trying to deal with the problem, such as a terrorist organization running things for the Palestinians.

I would say you pretty well nailed it. The Jews have given the Palestinians every chance possible, right back to 1948 when they offered them full Israeli citizenship and equal civil rights, and they have used every peace overture as an excuse to "call time" so they can reload their guns and plan more mayhem.

You understand that "the Palestinians" have no more authority over various splinter militia groups than OUR government has over...various splinter militia groups. And that a truce achieved with one group does not guarantee the behavior of another group. Any more than a police truce with the Crips in South Central L.A. means that MS-13 is going to stop shooting at the cops also.

However, a government does have control over its own military. If random insurgents and terrorists are shooting at the civilians and military, the government CAN, if it chooses, select the kind of response that will be appropriate. If the government's response is to believe that a cease-fire with the Crips is somehow going to prevent ALL gangs from shooting at the civilians, then obviously they are justified at killing "the Palestinians" every time a splinter group decides it would rather kill soldiers than honor the truce.

It's this kind of all-or-nothing us-vs.-them thinking that has driven most insurgency policies around the world and throughout history. Any time the government assumes that the enemies are "the Palestinians" or "the Catholics" or "the Injuns" then we get this kind of reaction. Just as there were many many tribes of Native Americans, and the majority of Catholics were not in the IRA, most Palestinians would be just as happy to cooperate with the Israeli government. But the government insists on first assuming that ALL Palestinians are somehow involved in fighting against them, and therefore ANY breach of a cease-fire means that every single person in the neighborhood deserves to be treated like killers.

The same thing happened during the Troubles in Ireland, when the British Army used any killing by the IRA as an excuse to roll through Catholic neighborhoods with APCs and soldiers laden with battle gear; and it happened in America when the government figured that all Injuns were the same big tribe and so a massacre by the Apaches was a good reason to wipe out the Cheyenne. All this thinking and reaction does is ensure that people who would otherwise be willing to sit down and discuss things WILL join the insurgency and WILL start shooting back at the government.

So here in Gaza, the Israelis (grudgingly) give the Palestinians the land they wanted, most people are thankful for a chance to rebuild their lives; and one group of disaffected freaks says "F*CK THIS! I WANNA KILL JEWS!!" and they do, and then the Israeli government says "See! All 'the Palestinians' want to do is kill us all!" and in come the tanks and soldiers. Now even more people become disaffected and angry...and so it goes.

People can't control their emotions, perhaps, and civilians have no control over the local hotheads with guns. But a government CAN control the kind of response it brings against the local hothead with guns. So far, Israel has chosen to view all of "the Palestinians" as the same evil enemy, and chosen not to learn from the mistakes of America. Maybe someday that will change.

Israel gave them the land they demanded expecting the Palestinians to stick to the peace agreement. The Palestinians saw it as an opportunity for a new front to fire rockets at the "evil j00z". Every single time Israel has made a concession, they have been proven wrong to trust anyone. They have zero incentive to play nice, especially since the UN spends more time denouncing anything they do instead of actually trying to deal with the problem, such as a terrorist organization running things for the Palestinians.

I would say you pretty well nailed it. The Jews have given the Palestinians every chance possible, right back to 1948 when they offered them full Israeli citizenship and equal civil rights, and they have used every peace overture as an excuse to "call time" so they can reload their guns and plan more mayhem.

You understand that "the Palestinians" have no more authority over various splinter militia groups than OUR government has over...various splinter militia groups. And that a truce achieved with one group does not guarantee the behavior of another group. Any more than a police truce with the Crips in South Central L.A. means that MS-13 is going to stop shooting at the cops also.

However, a government does have control over its own military. If random insurgents and terrorists are shooting at the civilians and military, the government CAN, if it chooses, select the kind of response that will be appropriate. If the government's response is to believe that a cease-fire with the Crips is somehow going to prevent ALL gangs from shooting at the civilians, then obviously they are justified at killing "the Palestinians" every time a splinter group decides it would rather kill soldiers than honor the truce.

It's this kind of all-or-nothing us-vs.-them thinking that has driven most insurgency policies around the world and throughout history. Any time the government assumes that the enemies are "the Palestinians" or "the Catholics" or ...

If the Palestinians, or anyone in charge, showed a consistent desire to stop the splinter groups, you'd have a point. Since they do no more than token efforts (and that's being generous), you don't.

ronaprhys:If the Palestinians, or anyone in charge, showed a consistent desire to stop the splinter groups, you'd have a point. Since they do no more than token efforts (and that's being generous), you don't.

Who is in charge of "the Palestinians"? You have to start there. Who is in charge of "the Palestinians" and has the authority and ability to stop a dozen guys holed up in some basement with some grenades and guns?

You're assuming--again--that there is some organization or quasi-government agency that can identify, locate and deter or prevent random people who have access to weapons. Who are these people? Who is the person "in charge" who can not only show a desire, because anyone can do that, but have the means to stop terrorists?

The only people who can do that are state-level governments. There is nobody "in charge" of "the Palestinians" who can exert enough force to stop splinter militias from doing what they do. So here you're falling into the same error as everyone else: The "the Palestinians" are a state or quasi-state and have the resources to stop their bad elements. They do not.

Gyrfalcon:So here in Gaza, the Israelis (grudgingly) give the Palestinians the land they wanted, most people are thankful for a chance to rebuild their lives; and one group of disaffected freaks says "F*CK THIS! I WANNA KILL JEWS!!" and they do, and then the Israeli government says "See! All 'the Palestinians' want to do is kill us all!" and in come the tanks and soldiers. Now even more people become disaffected and angry...and so it goes.People can't control their emotions, perhaps, and civilians have no control over the local hotheads with guns. But a government CAN control the kind of response it brings against the local hothead with guns. So far, Israel has chosen to view all of "the Palestinians" as the same evil enemy, and chosen not to learn from the mistakes of America. Maybe someday that will change.

My take on this is similar to what happened in Southern Lebanon.

Hezbollah shells Israel repeatedly, and the Lebanese government does nothing about it.

Finally Israel invades, and puts an end to it.

People get all upset, Israel invaded a sovereign country!

Well, if Lebanon had an effective government they wouldn't have let Hezbollah shell.

That Hezbollah could shell so effectively for so long demonstrates that the Lebanese government was ineffectual and unable to perform its sovereign duties.

At which point it seems perfectly justifiable for the target of those rockets and shells to go in there and put an end to it.

I realize the situation is more complex in Gaza but they do have a governing authority and that authority needs to show it is effective against attacking its neighbors.

Gyrfalcon:Who is in charge of "the Palestinians"? You have to start there. Who is in charge of "the Palestinians" and has the authority and ability to stop a dozen guys holed up in some basement with some grenades and guns?

Gyrfalcon:You understand that "the Palestinians" have no more authority over various splinter militia groups than OUR government has over...various splinter militia groups. And that a truce achieved with one group does not guarantee the behavior of another group. Any more than a police truce with the Crips in South Central L.A. means that MS-13 is going to stop shooting at the cops also.

However, a government does have control over its own military.

So, why don't "the Palestinians" have their government use it's military (or, heck, just police force) to go after the "various splinter militia groups" that are stirring things up? Stop them from causing trouble, and the Israeli government won't have to retaliate.

To use an analogy similar to yours: If the US was at was with Mexico because the Crips were lobbing missiles at Mexico, the US should use law enforcement (and, depending on circumstances, perhaps even the military) to round up and arrest all the Crips. No more Crips, no more missiles, no more war with Mexico.

Gyrfalcon:ronaprhys: If the Palestinians, or anyone in charge, showed a consistent desire to stop the splinter groups, you'd have a point. Since they do no more than token efforts (and that's being generous), you don't.

Who is in charge of "the Palestinians"? You have to start there. Who is in charge of "the Palestinians" and has the authority and ability to stop a dozen guys holed up in some basement with some grenades and guns?

You're assuming--again--that there is some organization or quasi-government agency that can identify, locate and deter or prevent random people who have access to weapons. Who are these people? Who is the person "in charge" who can not only show a desire, because anyone can do that, but have the means to stop terrorists?

The only people who can do that are state-level governments. There is nobody "in charge" of "the Palestinians" who can exert enough force to stop splinter militias from doing what they do. So here you're falling into the same error as everyone else: The "the Palestinians" are a state or quasi-state and have the resources to stop their bad elements. They do not.

Indubitably:Gyrfalcon: ronaprhys: If the Palestinians, or anyone in charge, showed a consistent desire to stop the splinter groups, you'd have a point. Since they do no more than token efforts (and that's being generous), you don't.

Who is in charge of "the Palestinians"? You have to start there. Who is in charge of "the Palestinians" and has the authority and ability to stop a dozen guys holed up in some basement with some grenades and guns?

You're assuming--again--that there is some organization or quasi-government agency that can identify, locate and deter or prevent random people who have access to weapons. Who are these people? Who is the person "in charge" who can not only show a desire, because anyone can do that, but have the means to stop terrorists?

The only people who can do that are state-level governments. There is nobody "in charge" of "the Palestinians" who can exert enough force to stop splinter militias from doing what they do. So here you're falling into the same error as everyone else: The "the Palestinians" are a state or quasi-state and have the resources to stop their bad elements. They do not.

How do people still have the energy to engage in this debate...is there really stuff left to say? We know why people support - or at least say they support - each side and nobody changes their mind. This is the first I've heard of Israel spraying stuff at Palestinians and without even reading the article I knew why Israel supporters would support it and why Palestinan supporters would be against it.

RanDomino:They don't just spray it on protesters. This happens in villages. It lasts for days and it happens weekly. Ethnic cleansing via gradually making life too miserable- why get on the front page of the New York Times by doing it the old fashioned way when checkpoints, incremental land grabs, cutting off water rights, building walls and restricted roads between farmers and their farmland, denying building permits, and making everything smell like shiat makes people wonder if it would just be easier to leave?

You want to back up your claim it is used on non protesters in villages weekly? Or is this another of your, all too common and predictable, lies about Israel?

Abox:How do people still have the energy to engage in this debate...is there really stuff left to say? We know why people support - or at least say they support - each side and nobody changes their mind. This is the first I've heard of Israel spraying stuff at Palestinians and without even reading the article I knew why Israel supporters would support it and why Palestinan supporters would be against it.

I have a Final Solution for the Israli/Palestinian question. Round up all the young men and put em in a pit, with weapons. Last partisan standing decides the outcome. Either way, once the population of young men is reduced to an acceptable level, the problem goes away.

ZulfikarThey can't have it both ways, which is what they are doing now.

It would seem that they can, in fact, have it both ways.

fredkleinSo, why don't "the Palestinians" have their government use it's military (or, heck, just police force) to go after the "various splinter militia groups" that are stirring things up? Stop them from causing trouble, and the Israeli government won't have to retaliate.

Answer: Because that makes it the Palestinians' fault; in which case Israel may carry on driving them away.

AboxHow do people still have the energy to engage in this debate...is there really stuff left to say?

Yeah, there's not much left to talk about... pretty much the only decent thing to do at this point would be to invade the West Bank, remove the IDF, and offer the settlers the choice of renouncing their Israeli citizenship and becoming Palestinian citizens or going to Israel. Those who think otherwise either haven't thought it completely through or are racist, imperialist scum. The kind of people who think "civilization" is this great project that countless humans have to be sacrificed for if necessary.

Basically because early Islam was fighting some dudes and Mohammed told the Jews in a town "come fight for me or else" and the Jews weren't willing to basically endorse Islam by fighting on their side. Mohammed got pissed that the Jews wouldn't take orders, and that's when Islam vs Judaism happened.

The arrogance of Mohammed makes modern douchebags look well adjusted.

You forgot the part about the jews trying to let in the dudes in the south

RoyBatty:Gyrfalcon: Who is in charge of "the Palestinians"? You have to start there. Who is in charge of "the Palestinians" and has the authority and ability to stop a dozen guys holed up in some basement with some grenades and guns?

I would assume Hamas since that's who the Gazans voted for...

Wrong?

No, but you're assuming that Hamas has the kind of resources that would be needed to prevent militia activity. Do they have a solid, stable police force that is free of ties to the insurgents themselves? Do they have money to pay off informants and collect intelligence? Do they have a military that can go head-to-head with the terrorists?

Also, you're assuming that all this just got going and they're at the front end of being able to stave off problems. Instead, this is the crap-end of a long and ugly process. If Hamas had had the ability to put down terrorists at the outset--and the means and resources to do it--that would be one thing. But remember, the US and Israel didn't acknowledge Hamas as the legitimate government. Hamas had no power to request foreign aid or IMF loans to help them get started. If Hamas had arrested their dissident elements, they would have had no place to put them (except in Israeli prisons) or try them (except in Israeli courts), which the residents of Gaza would not have accepted. And of course, they won't accept it now.

Someone used the analogy of the US being in a shooting war with Mexico, because of the Crips firing rockets at Juarez; we could use our police and military to stop the Crips and end the war. A better analogy would be if the City of Escondido was in such a war, and had to stop the Crips all on their own, without being able to summon the National Guard or the Marines--or even the San Diego County Sheriff's department. AND if the rest of America was constantly giving the Mayor of Escondido shiat for not stopping the war. It would not work out any better for the City of Escondido than it is for Gaza now.

Gyrfalcon:No, but you're assuming that Hamas has the kind of resources that would be needed to prevent militia activity. Do they have a solid, stable police force that is free of ties to the insurgents themselves? Do they have money to pay off informants and collect intelligence? Do they have a military that can go head-to-head with the terrorists?

I dunno, at some level Hamas has to shiat or get off the pot. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and Hamas has had plenty of time to build jails, gain informants, create civil authorities and police forces.

It appears to me, maybe ignorantly, that Hamas aids the rocket attackers, and doesn't try to stop it.

What group of people anywhere on the planet routinely shoot rocks at soldiers with slingshots and don't die? Only Israel's enemies -- and they are enemies. For them not to be enemies, Palestinians wouldn't send their children to do this.

It's time Israel behaved a bit like Assad and used only live rounds. The Islamist threat knows nothing that stops their hatred of non-Muslims except the butt of a gun.

RanDomino:AboxHow do people still have the energy to engage in this debate...is there really stuff left to say?

Yeah, there's not much left to talk about... pretty much the only decent thing to do at this point would be to invade the West Bank, remove the IDF, and offer the settlers the choice of renouncing their Israeli citizenship and becoming Palestinian citizens or going to Israel. Those who think otherwise either haven't thought it completely through or are racist, imperialist scum. The kind of people who think "civilization" is this great project that countless humans have to be sacrificed for if necessary. Go Palestinians!

RanDomino:They don't just spray it on protesters. This happens in villages. It lasts for days and it happens weekly. Ethnic cleansing via gradually making life too miserable- why get on the front page of the New York Times by doing it the old fashioned way when checkpoints, incremental land grabs, cutting off water rights, building walls and restricted roads between farmers and their farmland, denying building permits, and making everything smell like shiat makes people wonder if it would just be easier to leave?

Because just outright stating you have a national policy of Lebensraum is just too politically incorrect.

RoyBatty:Gyrfalcon: No, but you're assuming that Hamas has the kind of resources that would be needed to prevent militia activity. Do they have a solid, stable police force that is free of ties to the insurgents themselves? Do they have money to pay off informants and collect intelligence? Do they have a military that can go head-to-head with the terrorists?

I dunno, at some level Hamas has to shiat or get off the pot. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and Hamas has had plenty of time to build jails, gain informants, create civil authorities and police forces.

It appears to me, maybe ignorantly, that Hamas aids the rocket attackers, and doesn't try to stop it.

Time. But no money. No assistance from outside. Nobody helping them out. Hell, Iraq couldn't put together a working country with all the money and advisers America was pouring into it; how do you think Hamas was going to do it alone and broke? And trying to do all the other things a sub-country has to do, like build infrastructure, provide schools and housing, keep food and power flowing...without any help? We wouldn't even acknowledge they were democratically elected; how can we now turn around and say "Why aren't you acting like a government!?"

And again, as I said, maybe they could have done this in, say, 1950. Expecting it to work now is probably insane. Seven years is nothing with 50 years of turmoil and violence behind them.

Gyrfalcon:You understand that "the Palestinians" have no more authority over various splinter militia groups than OUR government has over...various splinter militia groups. And that a truce achieved with one group does not guarantee the behavior of another group. Any more than a police truce with the Crips in South Central L.A. means that MS-13 is going to stop shooting at the cops also.

Well for a correct analogy we would have to elect MS-13 to run the US.

However, a government does have control over its own military. If random insurgents and terrorists are shooting at the civilians and military, the government CAN, if it chooses, select the kind of response that will be appropriate. If the government's response is to believe that a cease-fire with the Crips is somehow going to prevent ALL gangs from shooting at the civilians, then obviously they are justified at killing "the Palestinians" every time a splinter group decides it would rather kill soldiers than honor the truce.

It's this kind of all-or-nothing us-vs.-them thinking that has driven most insurgency policies around the world and throughout history. Any time the government assumes that the enemies are "the Palestinians" or "the Catholics" or "the Injuns" then we get this kind of reaction. Just as there were many many tribes of Native Americans, and the majority of Catholics were not in the IRA, most Palestinians would be just as happy to cooperate with the Israeli government. But the government insists on first assuming that ALL Palestinians are somehow involved in fighting against them, and therefore ANY breach of a cease-fire means that every single person in the neighborhood deserves to be treated like killers.

I take issue with you saying most palestenians "would be just as happy to cooperate with the Israeli government" electing Hamas shows that isn't really true.

Also Israel doesn't assume "ALL Palestinians are somehow involved in fighting", otherwise they would just level every Palestinian village. They have never treated an entire neighborhood as killers, but the fact is if Palestenians use a building to launch rockets,t hey make that building a legit target.

So here in Gaza, the Israelis (grudgingly) give the Palestinians the land they wanted, most people are thankful for a chance to rebuild their lives; and one group of disaffected freaks says "F*CK THIS! I WANNA KILL JEWS!!" and they do, and then the Israeli government says "See! All 'the Palestinians' want to do is kill us all!" and in come the tanks and soldiers. Now even more people become disaffected and angry...and so it goes.

What is the other option? Allow Gaza to continue to rain rockets?

People can't control their emotions, perhaps, and civilians have no control over the local hotheads with guns. But a government CAN control the kind of response it brings against the local hothead with guns. So far, Israel has chosen to view all of "the Palestinians" as the same evil enemy, and chosen not to learn from the mistakes of America. Maybe someday that will change

Once again you are missing out that they elected the "hotheads".

shiat isn't going to change until palestinians want peace more than they want to kill jews, or at least they don't empower those that do. Unfortunately even if most did want peace with all the outside support from Arab nations for the "hotheads" would mean the hotheads would still run the roost.

Kumana Wanalaia:Until someone invents a "sleep-ray", non-lethal deterrents will be unpleasant. The more unpleasant the better, because that makes them more deterring.

Orgasm ray?

There was research recently into the idea of a Gay Bomb- that's literally what they called it- that would make the enemy so irresistable to one another that they started farking each other. Seriously. That was the concept. Never mind that such aphrodisiacs don't exist despite being long sought after, and it would seem more literal to call it a "Rape Bomb", actually.

alimansur:What group of people anywhere on the planet routinely shoot rocks at soldiers with slingshots and don't die? Only Israel's enemies -- and they are enemies. For them not to be enemies, Palestinians wouldn't send their children to do this.

It's time Israel behaved a bit like Assad and used only live rounds. The Islamist threat knows nothing that stops their hatred of non-Muslims except the butt of a gun.

I would like to point you to that Border and Country to the South of Western United States.